An official website of the United States government
This article draws on a case study of how Massachusetts treatment courts responded to the COVID-19 pandemic to address two intersecting theoretical and policy questions: (1) How do actors who work within criminal legal organizations use the law to solve complex social and political problems? (2) How do organizations working within multiple, fragmented organizational fields respond to an exogenous shock? The findings draw on interviews with eighty-four treatment court judges and practitioners and build from neo-institutional approaches to the study of courts to show that legal actors and organizations pursue pragmatic approaches, strategically adapting to their external environments through buffering, which is protective, and innovation, which is transformative. Each strategy reflects the courts’ autonomy or dependence on other organizations in the criminal legal and social service fields. The findings also provide insight into the social process of legitimation as personnel aligned beliefs with adaptation strategies, shifting understandings of surveillance practices and the utility of sanctions to meet overall court goals.
more »
« less
Contested by the State: Institutional Offloading in the Case of Crossover Youth
How do people become the responsibility of one state institution over another? Prevailing theory suggests that marginalized groups are funneled toward increasingly coercive control over the life course, yet more coercive institutions may not always assume responsibility for people sent their way. This article uses the unique case of crossover youth—children at the junction of child welfare and juvenile justice systems—to illustrate how state institutions negotiate and contest responsibility for marginalized groups. To explain this process, I advance a conceptual framework of institutional offloading, which contends that institutional actors seek to offload responsibility for eligible tasks or clients they perceive to unduly strain the resources at their disposal and expose them to blame. Drawing on ethnographic data from a California juvenile court and interviews with court actors, the analysis demonstrates how actors from Social Services, on one side, and Probation, on the other, attempt to offload responsibility for crossover youth. In this process, institutional actors construct and contest crossover youths’ status as dependent or delinquent. The findings highlight the importance of analyzing governance decisions as interlocking state processes and illuminate mechanisms by which the pipeline to prison for marginalized groups may be perpetuated and potentially disrupted.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2001733
- PAR ID:
- 10403442
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- American Sociological Review
- Volume:
- 88
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0003-1224
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 350-377
- Size(s):
- p. 350-377
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract BackgroundDespite many initiatives to improve graduate student and faculty diversity in engineering, there has been little or no change in the percentage of people from racially minoritized backgrounds in either of these groups. Purpose/HypothesisThe purpose of this paper is to counter the scarcity fallacy, in which institutions blame the “shortage” of qualified people from traditionally marginalized backgrounds for their own lack of representation, related to prospective PhD students and prospective faculty from traditionally marginalized groups. This study identifies the BS‐to‐PhD and PhD‐to‐tenure‐track‐faculty institutional pathways of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino engineering doctorate recipients. Design/MethodUsing the US Survey of Earned Doctorates, we tracked the BS‐to‐PhD institutional pathways of 3952 Black/African American and 5732 Hispanic/Latino engineering PhD graduates. We also used the Survey of Doctorate Recipients to track the PhD‐to‐tenure‐track faculty pathways of 104 Black/African American and 211 Hispanic/Latino faculty. ResultsThe majority of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino PhD graduates in this study did not earn their BS degrees from Top 25 institutions, but rather from Not Top 25, non‐US, and minority‐serving institutions. The results also show the relatively small proportion of PhD earners and faculty members who move into highly ranked institutions after earning a bachelor's degree from outside this set of institutions. ConclusionsThe findings of this study have important implications for graduate student and faculty recruitment by illustrating that recruitment from a narrow range of institutions (i.e., Top 25 institutions) is unlikely to result in increased diversity among racially minoritized PhDs and faculty in engineering.more » « less
-
Abstract Inspiring Girls* Expeditions is a global organization that empowers 16- to 18-year-old youth through 12-day backcountry science and art expeditions, including in the US Arctic and Subarctic. Because science and outdoor fields are historically white- and male-dominated, Inspiring Girls* follows an intersectional approach to welcome youth with marginalized genders, people of color, Indigenous people, and other marginalized groups into these arenas. Inspiring Girls* also provides professional development for early career scientist, artist, and outdoor guide instructors. We discuss how Inspiring Girls* leverages our own research as well as best practices from the literature to prioritize such strategies as intentionally building diverse teams, offering a tuition-free format, and participating in community learning to reimagine the inclusivity of science and outdoor fields in the Arctic and beyond.more » « less
-
Urban water systems across the United States are facing a variety of challenges to existing supply and demand dynamics. Responding to these challenges and working toward sustainability in these complex socio-environmental systems (SES) requires integrating various types of information – ranging from hydrologic data to political considerations and beyond – into policy and management decisions. However, the design of institutions, i.e. the formal rules in which urban water utilities are embedded, impact the flow of various types of information, especially across diverse actor groups critical to developing and implementing policy. Drawing on a neuroscience-informed Bayesian application of the Robustness of Coupled Infrastructure Systems (CIS) Framework, this study examines the institutional designs of two urban U.S. water systems. It aims to advance our understanding of these systems by: A) theoretically linking cognitive science and its action-oriented predictive processing approach to the institutional configurations that shape collective-action; and B) identifying potential institutional dependencies and voids that may limit the use of formalized climate-related guidance in systems facing increased risks. We utilize process-tracing along with an institutional analysis approach called the Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT) to parse the institutions into their semantic and syntactic components, identifying institutional dependencies, voids, or conflicts which may influence long-range performance of the systems. Our findings have important implications for the (re)design of institutions that better facilitate the flow of information among key policy actors and support policy changes that promote sustainable long-term urban water supply.more » « less
-
In widely used sociological descriptions of how accountability is structured through institutions, an “actor” (e.g., the developer) is accountable to a “forum” (e.g., regulatory agencies) empowered to pass judgements on and demand changes from the actor or enforce sanctions. However, questions about structuring accountability persist: why and how is a forum compelled to keep making demands of the actor when such demands are called for? To whom is a forum accountable in the performance of its responsibilities, and how can its practices and decisions be contested? In the context of algorithmic accountability, we contend that a robust accountability regime requires a triadic relationship, wherein the forum is also accountable to another entity: the public(s). Typically, as is the case with environmental impact assessments, public(s) make demands upon the forum's judgements and procedures through the courts, thereby establishing a minimum standard of due diligence. However, core challenges relating to: (1) lack of documentation, (2) difficulties in claiming standing, and (3) struggles around admissibility of expert evidence on and achieving consensus over the workings of algorithmic systems in adversarial proceedings prevent the public from approaching the courts when faced with algorithmic harms. In this paper, we demonstrate that the courts are the primary route—and the primary roadblock—in the pursuit of redress for algorithmic harms. Courts often find algorithmic harms non-cognizable and rarely require developers to address material claims of harm. To address the core challenges of taking algorithms to court, we develop a relational approach to algorithmic accountability that emphasizes not what the actors do nor the results of their actions, but rather how interlocking relationships of accountability are constituted in a triadic relationship between actors, forums, and public(s). As is the case in other regulatory domains, we believe that impact assessments (and similar accountability documentation) can provide the grounds for contestation between these parties, but only when that triad is structured such that the public(s) are able to cohere around shared experiences and interests, contest the outcomes of algorithmic systems that affect their lives, and make demands upon the other parties. Where courts now find algorithmic harms non-cognizable, an impact assessment regime can potentially create procedural rights to protect substantive rights of the public(s). This would require algorithmic accountability policies currently under consideration to provide the public(s) with adequate standing in courts, and opportunities to access and contest the actor's documentation and the forum's judgments.more » « less
